Paging Suzanne Goldenberg and Guardian editors – Pacific Institute Says Gleick Review Not Final

Quark Soup writes: Gleick Review Not Finalized, Pacific Institute Says

Last week Suzanne Goldenberg of The Guardian reported:

“A review has cleared the scientist Peter Gleick of forging any documents in his expose of the rightwing Heartland Institute’s strategy and finances, the Guardian has learned.”

But the Pacific Institute is telling me that no such clearing has occurred:

“The Pacific Institute Board of Directors has not finalized its review of the investigation or announced any decisions at this point.”

=============================================================

I pointed out the “shonky” journalism employed by Gleick apologist Suzanne Goldenberg.

It seems she jumped the gun again, just like she did in the original Fakegate release without bothering to verify facts and documents first. When I first started in TV journalism in 1978, that sort of stuff would get me fired. Apparently the Guardian has no such standards for journalistic integrity.

The UK Press Complaints Commission is the place to start to make a complaint.

 

About these ads

69 thoughts on “Paging Suzanne Goldenberg and Guardian editors – Pacific Institute Says Gleick Review Not Final

  1. If he’s the one that brings in the donation money at the Pacific Institute you can expect him to be washed so white, people will think he’s his own ghost.

  2. Agree with you mike bromley. Of course they’ll “exonerate” him. Just one more whitewash.

  3. I tweeted to her (no response) just asking why she skips over the forgery aspect. In her lame article she says “Glieck didn’t do it” (jury is still out I’d say) but then does not deny the document was in fact forged and she willfully skips over the obvious issue – if Glieck *did not* do it, then who did? Glaring oversight for anyone calling themselves a “journalist”.

  4. He will not be exonerated – that means to clear, as of an accusation; free from guilt or blame;

    It is like the way people use the word “refute” when all they are saying is “deny” – there is a big difference and it shows the ignorance of the types who will “exonerate” people like Gleick !!

  5. “The Pacific Institute Board of Directors has not finalized its review of the investigation or announced any decisions at this point.”

    The Board of Directors could not finalize a review, since none exists. Pacific Institute said in February that they hired an independent firm to do the review. Either they accept an acceptable result or change the result to suit their agenda. Be careful, Goldenberg and Pacific are likely allies. Complaints to the Guardian could easily be turned against sceptics when Pacific “review” exhonerates Gleick and Goldenburg. Don’t think this could be planned out? It isn’t over till the PI sings. And they’ve had more than two months to write the song. How would Goldenburg know who the “independent firm” is, if it even exists? Does anyone? Why not?

  6. So even if he did not forge the document, there is still the question of: Why did he go public with it? If someone truely sent it to him anonymously, the right thing would be to throw it in the trash, not release it as if it were a genuine document.

    There is way more to this then we are being told.

  7. just some guy says:
    May 25, 2012 at 6:50 pm

    “So even if he did not forge the document, there is still the question of: Why did he go public with it? If someone truely sent it to him anonymously, the right thing would be to throw it in the trash, not release it as if it were a genuine document.
    There is way more to this then we are being told.”

    Unless it was just Gleick who forged the memo after stealing the HI docs. Is there someone else who had enough information about HI to spin such a memo, besides Gleick, but who did not provide Gleick with those real documents? And Gleick would be covering for that insider? Ockhams razor and all.

  8. Suzanne Goldenberg reported “A review has cleared the scientist Peter Gleick of forging any documents …”

    Peter Gleick has admitted he used a false identity to illicitly obtain the documents released. Now, how does S. Goldenberg explain Gleick’s releasing of the forged document, given Gleick’s admission? Are we supposed to believe somebody slipped a forged document in with the documents Gleick illicitly obtained, and Gleick didn’t notice? Are we supposed to believe that Heartland created a fake document just to trip-up Gleick, despite the risks?

    Left out of S. Goldenberg’s story is who’s or whom’s review cleared Gleick. Why does that lack of important information remind one of AGWers claims of Global Warming? Where is the data and work or in this case who’s review, the reviewer(s) involved, expert(s) and legal authority(s) involved, who testified, what fact finding was done, did Gleick pass a Lie Detector Test or was he merely taken at his word, …?

  9. Suzanne Goldenberg, your new position in charge of the classifieds is calling! Youhoo! Suzanne!! Classifieds!!!

  10. I thought it was just us guys.

    But now it’s clear that this woman, Susan Goldenberg, is also susceptible to … … … …

    PREMATURE EMACULATION

    [Hope she cleans up the mess]

  11. on the topic of Occam’s razor, and the thought that “There is way more to this then we are being told.”

    Not necessarily. If Gleick is nothing but a pathetically overpromoted idiot who never understood actual science and instead played politics for his career while mooching off the work of those around him, then he would easily be stupid enough to never had a clue that all of this would blow up in his face.

    the man is a moron. he has always been a moron, and in this affair he made the kind of mistakes you would expect an incompetent moron to make. That quite neatly explains everything.

  12. Why is Gleick still free and why has not Goldenberg been served with defamation and rico papers ( Look up RICO).

  13. People, it’s very obvious who cleared Gleick. It’s Suzanne Goldenberg herself. The left uses words to shape their ‘reality’ – not report it.

  14. What part of “wire fraud” am I missing here ?

    From Wiki:

    Wire
    18 U.S.C. § 1343 provides:

    Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. If the violation affects a financial institution, such person shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.[3]
    ===============
    Seems the “or property” part might apply.

  15. Heartland should press charges. Might be the only way to yank out the facts. Unfortunately, if there’s not enough evidence, a lawsuit could also backfire and just give charletons like Goldenberg more ammunition.

  16. “When I first started in TV journalism in 1978, that sort of stuff would get me fired. Apparently the Guardian has no such standards for journalistic integrity.” Unfortunately the Guardian is not alone or even in a minority position. TV is one of the worst of a pitiful lot. They have turned into press release repeaters and advocates.

  17. Isn’t there a pursuit of an identity theft crime committed by Gleick? What am I missing when I think that Heartland, and the person who Gleick impersonated, both have criminal complaints they could pursue. It seems that since Gleick confessed, a prosecution would be a slam dunk, and it would matter in no way what the Pacific Institute “found.” Or what the Guardian opined.

  18. I thought there was no one in the world of journalism as bad as Seth Boreinstine [sp?]. Apparently I was wrong; there is Suzanne Golderburg?

  19. Grey Lensman says:
    May 25, 2012 at 7:34 pm
    Why is Gleick still free and why has not Goldenberg been served with defamation and rico papers ( Look up RICO).
    ******

    Because the DOJ is a political joke. Both Holder and Obama spoke out against SB1070 before they even read it.

    It is a sad time we live in.

  20. Rosco writes in response to my comment about Gleick:” He will not be exonerated – that means to clear, as of an accusation; free from guilt or blame;

    It is like the way people use the word “refute” when all they are saying is “deny” – there is a big difference and it shows the ignorance of the types who will “exonerate” people like Gleick !!”

    I put the word “exonerate” in quotes. Why do you suppose I might have done that?

  21. Folks, pay no mind to the whole farce of ‘a review’. Is not Mr Gleick ‘President and cofounder’ of the Much heralded ‘Pacific Institute’? It is asinine to think for a second that Gleick will suffer any damages from his own ‘institute’ for his transgressions. It’s his house, kingdom, fiefdom. I wish that Heartland would actually sue him, though I’m starting to doubt that will happen either.

    I’m with all of you about what should happen to him, but don’t hold your breath. Goldman just printed the article a month too quickly by mistake.

  22. Even if Gleick didn’t create the fake document, nearly as big a crime was that he lied about the source for no good reason. He claimed that he was an insider and that he got the fake document from Heartland, apparently to increase its credibility. He has admitted that he was not a Heartland insider and that he didn’t get the fake document from Heartland. Now he claims that he got it from an anonymous source. He could have and should have just reported the true source of the documents from the beginning. The reason he didn’t is obvious, he knew it was fake. If somebody brings forth a fake document and lies about the source, it is fair to assume that he faked it himself.

  23. As long as speculation is rampant, did it occur to anyone that Suzanne Goldenberg may be the actual author of the fake document sent by Gleick? She may have some pangs of conscience with the situation he is in and what better way to try to extract him from the mess. Birds of feather syndrome?

  24. wws says:
    May 25, 2012 at 7:32 pm

    on the topic of Occam’s razor, and the thought that “There is way more to this then we are being told.”

    Not necessarily. If Gleick is nothing but a pathetically overpromoted idiot who never understood actual science and instead played politics for his career while mooching off the work of those around him, then he would easily be stupid enough to never had a clue that all of this would blow up in his face.

    the man is a moron. he has always been a moron, and in this affair he made the kind of mistakes you would expect an incompetent moron to make. That quite neatly explains everything.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    I can only add to that very insightful comment. Also, we shouldn’t forget that Goldenberg is a complete imbecile as well. More, she’s a moron who has been shown to be one who fabricates stories.

  25. Lets not get carried away. There’s overwelming evidence pointing to Gleick. There’s, um, no evidence pointing to Goldenberg.

  26. i love it when the MSM accuses someone (Heartland) of being “right-wing”, lol. When you’re as far to the left as they are, everyone looks “right-wing”.

  27. BillyV: …did it occur to anyone that Suzanne Goldenberg may be the actual author of the fake document sent by Gleick?

    I doubt it. The forged document was superficially plausible. Ms. Goldenburg’s writing isn’t.

  28. BillyV says:
    May 25, 2012 at 8:45 pm

    As long as speculation is rampant, did it occur to anyone that Suzanne Goldenberg may be the actual author of the fake document sent by Gleick?

    An interesting point, barring the fact that she’s (in my humble opinion) barely competent to tie her own shoelaces, let alone copy his writing style. She seems to subscribe to the “salad shooter” style of current journalism, where – if one flings enough enough stuff, factual or not – some of it is bound to stick.

    Anyway, a formal complaint has been lodged, which may or may not have any effect. But it at least might irritate the powers that be at The Grauniad, and cause them to look twice at her belchings before allowing her to post her unsubstantiated and poorly-written diatribes.

  29. shameful stuff from The Economist:

    26 May: Economist: Climate scepticism (unattributed)
    Toxic shock
    A climate-change sceptic is melting
    THE Heartland Institute, the world’s most prominent think-tank promoting scepticism about man-made climate change, is getting a lot of heat…
    The institute’s problems began in February when an American water scientist, Peter Gleick, published internal Heartland documents that he had obtained under a false name. They provided details of its accounts—including references to an anonymous donor who gave $8.6m between 2007 and 2011—and of a plan to send teaching materials denouncing global warming to American primary schools. (Mr Bast says that far from exposing his institute, the documents exonerated it from charges that it was a front for the fossil-fuel industry.)…

    http://www.economist.com/node/21555894

    Wikipedia: The Economist
    The publication belongs to The Economist Group, half of which is owned by the Financial Times, a subsidiary of Pearson PLC. A group of independent shareholders, including many members of the staff and the Rothschild banking family of England,[9] owns the rest…
    The news magazine favours a carbon tax to fight global warming…
    The Economist has endorsed both the Labour Party (in 2005) and the Conservative Party (in 2010[33]) at general election time in Britain, and both Republican and Democratic candidates in the United States…

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist

  30. BillyV says:
    May 25, 2012 at 8:45 pm
    As long as speculation is rampant, did it occur to anyone that Suzanne Goldenberg may be the actual author of the fake document sent by Gleck?

    Implausible, unless she’s adept at Gleick’s style of writing — a forensic analyst pointed to Gleick as the probable author: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/14/professional-forensic-stylometric-analysis-of-the-fake-heartland-climate-strategy-memo-concludes-peter-gleick-is-the-likely-forger/

  31. joe says:
    May 25, 2012 at 9:14 pm
    i love it when the MSM accuses someone (Heartland) of being “right-wing”, lol. When you’re as far to the left as they are, everyone looks “right-wing”.

    Unless they’re describing Marxists — then the adjective is “moderate” or “middle-of-the-road”…

  32. it’s all over, Ms Goldenberg:

    25 May: Deutsche Welle: Nathan Witkop: Bonn climate talks end in squabbling
    Bickering over procedural issues tied up much of the two weeks of UN climate talks that ended in Bonn on Friday, the first time negotiators met since last year’s summit in Durban.
    “The window of opportunity is very slowly closing down on us,” said conference chairwoman Sandea de Wet towards the end of the session, as delegates struggled to agree on a chair for an important new working group known as the Adhoc Durban Platform…
    ***”The spirit of collective action was broken in Bonn,” said the European Union’s main negotiator Artur Runge Metzge…
    Separately, the International Energy Agency reported on Thursday that the world is increasing its dependence on carbon-intensive energy. In a report, it said emissions from fossil fuels reached a new record of 31.6 billion tons last year, up 3.6%…

    http://www.dw.de/dw/article/0,,15978278,00.html

    26 May: Reuters: Nina Chestney: Deadlock on climate talks could sink global deal
    Hopes are fading that climate talks in Qatar late this year will make even modest progress towards getting a new globally binding climate deal signed by 2015, as preliminary negotiations in Germany this week have left much work to be done…
    “(We know) trade talks collapsed in Doha. Are we setting the stage for the collapse of climate negotiations?” said Mithika Mwenda, co-ordinator for campaign group the Pan-African Climate Justice Alliance.
    “This is like the Titanic, where both developing countries and industrialized countries will sink.”…
    “I think it would be unrealistic to think there will be major breakthroughs very soon,” the IEA’s chief economist Fatih Birol said on Thursday, referring to the climate talks.
    “Climate change is sliding down in the international policy agenda, which is definitely a worrying trend.”…
    Expectations for international climate talks in general have faded since a summit in Copenhagen in 2009 failed to deliver a globally binding deal…

    http://www.lfpress.com/comment/2012/05/25/19800076.html

    Mwenda should give thanx, and the final excerpt should have said “faded since Climategate in 2009″.

    ——————————————————————————–

  33. pat says:
    May 25, 2012 at 9:44 pm
    shameful stuff from The Economist:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    I quit reading the Economist a long time ago. Like many of the science journals, the quality and accuracy of the articles has become so abysmal that it isn’t even worth reading for the purpose of mocking them.

  34. J.K.Rowling must have had Goldenberg in mind when writing Rita Skeeter into the Harry Potter stories. Rita Skeeter is a reporter for the Daily Prophet & specialises in yellow journalism, defined thusly: “Yellow journalism, or the yellow press, is a type of journalism that presents little or no legitimate well-researched news and instead uses eye-catching headlines to sell more newspapers.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism

    Golden is a type of yellow!! Says it all, really.

  35. Actually I wouldn’t be at all surprised if she had inside information from someone on the investigation team who told her “Gleick will be cleared of forgery when our investigation concludes. We start the investigation tomorrow by the way.”

  36. The only review likely to be going on is by the Pacific Institute’s legal counsel and liability insurers into the potential liability the Pacific Institute may have resulting from the actions of Gleick.

    As they could be subject to litigation the Pacific Institute will know they have a duty to preserve documents and electronic records. Their computers will need to be digitally forensically examined to determine whether Gleick used their computers in deceiving Heartland and whether there is an electronic record of the forged document.

    All data, records and documents which may be subject to discovery and subpoena will have to be located, reviewed and prepared for litigation so that they can be produced quickly upon request.

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_26

    It would be extremely foolish to give this kind of information would to Goldenberg.

  37. Perry says:
    May 25, 2012 at 11:18 pm
    “Yellow journalism, or the yellow press, is a type of journalism that presents little or no legitimate well-researched news and instead uses eye-catching headlines to sell more newspapers.”

    No. The NYT, The Guardian, and Der Spiegel are operating in a coordinated fashion, citing each other, giving each other accolades, creating a new warped and corrected interpretation of reality. The three serpents of leftist journalism winding around each other. (The Guardian looks a little blue around the nose, though, when one looks at its circulation. Hope it dies. What will the other two use as replacement? Well, they could declare the Pravda as a trusted source, then it would come full circle.)

  38. Mafia clears wise-guys of robbing banks. After a full and thorough investigation into the bank robbery the Mafia found no evidence to support the claim. A local police spokesman confirmed his satisfaction with the speed and thoroughness of the inquiry.

    Guardian Journalist Suzanne Goldenberg says this investigation proves that the Mafia has changed. Before they would have had no investigation or inquiry.

  39. Aside from the broader tendencies of a crime syndicate, isn’t “Pacific Institute” pretty much another name for Peter Gleick? He’s not just an employee who happened to be hired; the “Institute” is his corporate structure.

  40. Aside from the broader conspiracy, isn’t “Pacific Institute” pretty much Gleick’s own corporate structure? He’s not just an employee who happened to be hired.

  41. The problem is that even if he’s cleared doesn’t mean mean he didn’t do it.

    Now onto some literally brighter weather news (not climate):

    “Mount Kilimanjaro is slowly building up its snow cover, allaying the fears of prominent scientists who had predicted witnessing the eminence lose its famous white hat.
    ……………………..
    The writer of this article observed during this week’s flight closer to the mountain, recovering snow piled up, covering the whole mountain peak.”

    http://www.eturbonews.com/29410/snow-adorns-crown-kilimanjaro

    [my bold]

    Expect a pal reviewed paper out soon in your area explaining how it’s caused by global warming climate change.

    H/t Marc Morano

  42. News just in: Suzanne Goldenberg has been seen buying up truck loads of whitewash.

    I still don’t know who carried out the investigation that Ms. Goldenberg refers to. If the Pacific Institute employed external investigators then who are they?

    Now onto some terrible climate news:

    British butterfly defies doom prediction to thrive in changing climate

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/may/24/brown-argus-butterfly-climate-change

    This must be the first story that I have read from the Guardian in which global warming has been good for good things. ;-)

  43. Nail casserole*. Gleick was identified by the literary fingerprints in the forged document. Later he admitted to everything except the forgery. Now he’s been ‘cleared’ of the forgery.

    How..er..ironic.

    * Put nail in casserole dish, Add vegatables, lamb cuts, onions, carrots, diced suede, stock, sauce, sauted potatoes, etc. Cook in oven slowly for 90 minutes, stirring occasionally. Remove from oven. Throw nail away. Serve.

  44. The headline

    – “Peter Gliek cleared of forging documents in the Heartland expose” and text

    – “A review has cleared the scientist Peter Gleick of forging any documents in his expose of the rightwing Heartland Institute’s strategy and finances, the Guardian has learned”

    seem to fail the Code’s tests on Accuracy –

    i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information…

    ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion once recognised must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence…

  45. Gleick forged the memo!

    Here is a quote from Gleick: “I forwarded, anonymously, the documents I had received to a set of journalists and experts working on climate issues. ”

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-h-gleick/heartland-institute-documents_b_1289669.html

    How many people use the word “set” to describe a group of individuals?

    Here is a quote from the forged memo: “I propose that at this point it be kept confidential, and only distributed to a subset of Institute Board and senior staff.”

  46. Dear Pacific Institute

    I am a high ranking Pacific Institute Board Member away at a convention. I do not have my
    normal computer access. Please forward to me all of our most sensitive files, in unencripted format, as I have a few things I need to review. Forward to RICO@FauxScienceAlliance.congame

    Professor Phish

    [who knows....if the PI organization is as dumb as the founder this might work]

  47. Tools like Suzanne Goldenberg are looking more compromised by the day. Sad–such wasted tallent.

  48. Anthony writes: “But the Pacific Institute is telling me that no such clearing has occurred:

    The Pacific Institute Board of Directors has not finalized its review of the investigation or announced any decisions at this point.
    ——————————————————————————————
    Certainty: the independent investigation has been concluded and the report is in the hands of the board.

    Possibilities: the investigation has exonerated Gleick of serious wrong-doing but perhaps finding a brief lapse in judgment. A member of that investigation may have leaked the results to Goldenberg, which might tell you something of the composition of the panel hired to investigate Gleick.

    A less likely possibility: one or more members of the Board may be in disagreement with the findings or the quality of the report and are either recommending rejection or a follow-up report. If there is disagreement, a member of the board supporting Gleick may have leaked the nature of the contents of the report to Goldenberg to pressure the dissenters.

    Or, most likely, all board members are in agreement and are waiting for the most opportune time to announce Gleick’s exoneration (aka “whitewash.”) They may possibly be waiting to see what Heartland will do.

    It’s likely that Gleick will be exonerated. He was the boss, afterall.

  49. ? PI was founded by, and is currently directed by, none other than Gleick himself. Why on earth would anyone even care what they say about the matter?

    Mark

  50. DirkH says: May 26, 2012 at 12:50 am

    Perry says: May 25, 2012 at 11:18 pm
    [...]

    No. The NYT, The Guardian, and Der Spiegel are operating in a coordinated fashion, citing each other, giving each other accolades, creating a new warped and corrected interpretation of reality. The three serpents of leftist journalism winding around each other. (The Guardian looks a little blue around the nose, though, when one looks at its circulation. Hope it dies. What will the other two use as replacement? Well, they could declare the Pravda as a trusted source, then it would come full circle.)

    Dirk, that sounds like the peer review process with papers from the Team!

  51. gleick is their daniel ellsburg. a hero to the cause.

    the screaming question is why heartland did nothing when they could have.

  52. “mfo says:
    May 26, 2012 at 12:12 am
    The only review likely to be going on is by the Pacific Institute’s legal counsel and liability insurers into the potential liability the Pacific Institute may have resulting from the actions of Gleick.

    As they could be subject to litigation the Pacific Institute will know they have a duty to preserve documents and electronic records… “

    Um, are you telling us that the institute that Gleick founded will have staff that are more intelligent, better organized and careful than Gleick?

    No offense intended, just a little sarcasm for humor purposes only as I tend to agree that the premise that institute wouldn’t have succeeded without people who know how to spin a valid sounding yarn. (Storytime fellow CAGW faithful! Wouldn’t you like to hear about… yak yak yak till even the walls stop listening and nod their heads)

    I am also tempted to think that an announcement of temporary insanity might be imminent. Their approach would be to declare Gleick as incapable of deciding right/wrong due to severe stress and that he was not responsible for his actions. After a suitable period of rest, recuperation and counseling Gleick will be pronounced fit and ready to lead the institute again. Legal demands for internal PacInt investigations will be filled with psychiatry session mumbo jumbo about Gleick ramblings. Since the actual ‘investigation’ is probably some pacint Gleick staffer friends sitting around a table working on their Gleick’s recovery press announcement and tallying up all of the ‘dreadful sufferings’ Gleick endured in his fight against the mighty scepic army.

    I sure would like to see some law enforcement action. I wrote emails to Representative Issa and my state reps about the Feds need to act promptly in enforcing such an egregious abuse of our laws. No response from Issa or my state’s rep on his council, my local rep sent a nice

    "Thank you for your letter, as you know your rep XXX is very busy seeing to his constituents needs ...".

    Nothing about the issue I raised. Maybe it’s time to write again.

  53. Imagine if a climate skeptic used wire fraud, identity theft and forgeries to steal documents from and libel climate scientists. They’d be washing dishes next to Rod Blagojevich and Jeffry Skilling at Englewood.

    The warmist team at Wikipedia has made sure climategate is called a “hacking incident” while fakegate is called a “leak”.

    The hypocrisy is unbelievable!

  54. The Guardian – sounds like a product for incontinence.

    When your activist lifestyle gets a little messy but you want to keep a professional appearance, the Guardian offers the perfect protection you require.
    Hello, I’m Suzanne Goldenberg. My premature discharges used to cause endless problems at work. It seemed like every day some pesky editor would say; ‘Something doesn’t pass the smell test here Suzanne.”
    Then a friend suggested I try the Guardian. It was just what I had been looking for. The Guardian offers mult-level protection providing the perfect cover I need. And the Guardian looks, fits and feels like a real newspaper. And best of all, the Guardian is 100% recyclable – your pets will love it too!

  55. just some guy says:
    May 26, 2012 at 12:29 pm

    “The hypocrisy is unbelievable!”

    They’re leftists. Veracity ain’t at the top of their list of virtues.

  56. Grey Lensman says: @ May 25, 2012 at 7:34 pm
    Why is Gleick still free and why has not Goldenberg been served with defamation and rico papers ( Look up RICO).
    ___________________________________
    Reg Nelson says: @ May 25, 2012 at 8:23 pm
    Because the DOJ is a political joke. Both Holder and Obama spoke out against SB1070 before they even read it.

    It is a sad time we live in.
    ____________________________________
    You are correct.

    After years of wading through a case trying to press multiple criminal charges against a set of people with very good evidence. (A computer was tracking them and sending the info to a Federal Government department) I have come to the conclusion that CRIME PAYS! The local police do not give a hoot, the federal cops do not give a hoot and neither does the District Attorney.

    If Heartland is running into the type of crud I ran into in trying to press charges I am not at all surprised we have not heard anything yet.

    It is only when you violate a reg with large fines accruing to the department or when a large corporation with political pull is targeting you that the police are willing to act.

  57. For anyone who would like a Gleick “Fakegate” T-shirt, I have some left. Send me an email to my throwaway account: themistocles2010-2020*AT*yahoo.com, with a mailing address. State your size. I also have some Heartland “Don’t Tread On Me” T-shirts.

    No charge for WUWT readers [if you like, you can always donate a few dollars to support Anthony's site]. For those who have already ordered, I’ll be sending them out on Tuesday because of the holiday weekend.

    No charge! What are you waiting for??☺☺☺

  58. Eventually, the warmers will have to choose a fall guy in order for the lot of them to continue to be taken seriously. If not Gleick, then someone else foolish enough to fall on his/her own sword. But here is the hilarious part: That many of them keep doing that defies logic!!!!!

  59. I posted a comment on a Guardian story written by Goldenberg about wildfires in the US. I can’t remember exactly what I typed but, in response to some unsavoury comments about the US getting what it deserved due to climate change denial, I drew attention to the fact that the US has reduced its CO2 emissions due to shale gas exploitation. Something the euro-eco-fascists had failed to do using the full weight of the EU-dictatorship. However, I don’t think that was why my comment was removed. At the end I asked how the Guardian knew the result of the Peter Gleick investigation before it was published. My comment was there for a couple of hours and drew one response which has also been removed. I’ll keep trying, we do have a free press in our wonderful UK democracy after all, don’t we?

  60. Popes butler arrested on charges of allegedly leaking Vatican documents. All you need to know.

    Gleick admits he did it, breaching many Federal laws, but no action!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  61. RockyRoad says:
    May 26, 2012 at 8:20 am
    Tools like Suzanne Goldenberg are looking more compromised by the day. Sad–such wasted tallent.

    Assumes facts not in evidence.

  62. Strange, after my previous post was removed from the Guardian’s website I posted this:

    ‘My comment here:

    FactHunter
    26 May 2012 12:36PM

    was removed because it breached community standards. Could the mods please clarify what I did wrong?
    The first part of my post was in response to some people who said the US was getting what it deserved due to climate change denial. All I posted was a link to an FT article pointing out that the US has reduced its CO2 emissions due to shale gas exploitation, something Europe has failed to do.

    I then asked, off topic I admit but it relates to a story by the author of this article that is closed for comment, about an item regarding Peter Gleick being cleared of any wrong doing in the Heartland Institute affair. The bit that confuses me is that the Pacific Institute, the organisation conducting the investigation, has stated that the results haven’t been published yet. How did the Guardian’s reporter know the results?

    Any clarification would be appreciated as I would hate to have any more posts removed.’

    This appeared on the site for a while but was also removed. Unlike the previously removed post there was no record of it having ever been there. I find this obvious pushing of an agenda slightly unsettling and disturbing.

    I think their intention is clear.

Comments are closed.